Obama Repeals More Of Obamacare - Individual Mandate Affected

It seems Nancy Pelosi was wrong when she said "we have to pass" ObamaCare to "find out what's in it." No one may ever know because the White House keeps treating the Affordable Care Act's text as a mere suggestion subject to day-to-day revision. Its latest political retrofit is the most brazen: President Obama is partly suspending the individual mandate.

The White House argued at the Supreme Court that the insurance-purchase mandate was not only constitutional but essential to the law's success, while refusing Republican demands to delay or repeal it. But late on Thursday, with only four days to go before the December enrollment deadline, the Health and Human Services Department decreed that millions of Americans are suddenly exempt.

Individuals whose health plans were canceled will now automatically qualify for a "hardship exemption" from the mandate. If they can't or don't sign up for a new plan, they don't have to pay the tax. They can also get a special category of ObamaCare insurance designed for people under age 30.

The point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

I don't know how the insurance companies can keep up with these changes every other day. It's going to destroy their business. Unlike politics, businesses can't just make these huge changes on a whim.

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

Translation: bla bla bla I hate liberals bla bla bla

So fucking tired.

Quite true. Teething troubles notwithstanding, the right tried to strangle ACA at birth and have done everything possible to hinder its progress. They know that if (and probably when) it gets up and running properly the Tea Party and the GOP will be completely fucked.

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

And you may not heard of President Bush's signing statements he unconstitutionally added to Congressional bills he approved. Unilaterally redefining the bills to fit his own agenda. Which did, however, fit Dick Cheney's theory of the Unitary Presidency (aka the unitary executive theory).

And which Democrats did protest, but Republicans simply ignored and permitted Bush to prevail. So that it was a Republican Administration that was making changes to laws, contrary to the separation of powers. Where were your own criticisms then? The precedent was set.

I never heard of these things. Please provide proof from a credible (meaning NOT left wing) source. If your assertion is true, I would speak against it. Executive orders should be scrutinized for constitutionality, as should all laws before being passed. The democrats argue against that, because it would curb their power.

I believe there has been a constitutional amendment proposed for a long time now to state where in the constitution congress has the authority to enact whatever legislation it proposes, but it hasn't gotten anywhere, because that would curb congressional power.

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

And you may not heard of President Bush's signing statements he unconstitutionally added to Congressional bills he approved. Unilaterally redefining the bills to fit his own agenda. Which did, however, fit Dick Cheney's theory of the Unitary Presidency (aka the unitary executive theory).

And which Democrats did protest, but Republicans simply ignored and permitted Bush to prevail. So that it was a Republican Administration that was making changes to laws, contrary to the separation of powers. Where were your own criticisms then? The precedent was set.

Your entire diatribe fails. If you would have taken the time to look at his profile:

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

And you may not heard of President Bush's signing statements he unconstitutionally added to Congressional bills he approved. Unilaterally redefining the bills to fit his own agenda. Which did, however, fit Dick Cheney's theory of the Unitary Presidency (aka the unitary executive theory).

And which Democrats did protest, but Republicans simply ignored and permitted Bush to prevail. So that it was a Republican Administration that was making changes to laws, contrary to the separation of powers. Where were your own criticisms then? The precedent was set.

Signing statements had been expanding for some time. But it is a more expansive idea to change parts of the law arbitrarily after the law is implemented .

Obama has suspended parts of the law when the Congress also had the same suspended parts pending. On this track we will have a monarch very soon.

And its a straw-man argument to ask Where was your criticism during Bush?

There were plenty of things I didn't care for with Bush. If the assertions are true, I'd have spoken against it. Nevertheless, if something that is wrong is happening, do we try and stop it, or just keep doing it because someone else got away with it in the past? If yes, then there will never be any change for the better. Certainly allowing one branch of government to usurp power simply because you happen to like the supposed intent of an incumbent politician is clearly dangerous to anyone who knows history, and the patterns shown by the demise of governments. It is always prudent to consider the what ifs that can happen in future, the UNintended consequences.

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

And you may not heard of President Bush's signing statements he unconstitutionally added to Congressional bills he approved. Unilaterally redefining the bills to fit his own agenda. Which did, however, fit Dick Cheney's theory of the Unitary Presidency (aka the unitary executive theory).

And which Democrats did protest, but Republicans simply ignored and permitted Bush to prevail. So that it was a Republican Administration that was making changes to laws, contrary to the separation of powers. Where were your own criticisms then? The precedent was set.

Your entire diatribe fails. If you would have taken the time to look at his profile:

Member since: 09/01/12

Naturally my question to him is dealing with the time of the Bush Administration, and whether he was protesting Presidential signing statements at that time, in any forum or form. I myself wasn't on RJ for most of the Bush Administration, and RJ itself didn't even begin until Bush had already been in office several years.

But a nice attempt to derail the discussion with an irrelevant comment. Reminds me of another guy, who keeps creating socks and getting banned, starts spamming untrue anti-Obama propaganda the moment he returns with a new sock, racks up dozens of posts in a couple of days... Say, you wouldn't know him, would you?

Blakes7 saidThe point is that the administration is making changes to law that it is not allowed to, however good the intentions might be. It's up to congress to amend laws. You may not have heard of the concept of separation of powers, or checks and balances. If it were a republican president making changes on his own, or if he even thought about it, the left would be hysterical.

And you may not heard of President Bush's signing statements he unconstitutionally added to Congressional bills he approved. Unilaterally redefining the bills to fit his own agenda. Which did, however, fit Dick Cheney's theory of the Unitary Presidency (aka the unitary executive theory).

And which Democrats did protest, but Republicans simply ignored and permitted Bush to prevail. So that it was a Republican Administration that was making changes to laws, contrary to the separation of powers. Where were your own criticisms then? The precedent was set.

Your entire diatribe fails. If you would have taken the time to look at his profile:

Member since: 09/01/12

Naturally my question to him is dealing with the time of the Bush Administration, and whether he was protesting Presidential signing statements at that time, in any forum or form. I myself wasn't on RJ for most of the Bush Administration, and RJ itself didn't even begin until Bush had already been in office several years.

But a nice attempt to derail the discussion with an irrelevant comment. Reminds me of another guy, who keeps creating socks and getting banned, starts spamming untrue anti-Obama propaganda the moment he returns with a new sock, racks up dozens of posts in a couple of days... Say, you wouldn't know him, would you?

Oh, I see, so your question, "Where were your criticisms then?" was simply that, a question, and not "I am sure that you didn't voice criticism at that time." Right....